Staggering HID's with LED's for CO2 usage

[SirGr0wAL0t]

I've looked everywhere, without luck, but find it hard to believe no one has tried this. I'd like some feedback from some more experienced heads:

The basics:
1000w hps
400w mh
180w led
Approximately 25-30 ft^2 in 2 combined (and reasonably sealed) tents
Top feed into 5g buckets, draining back to res
Co2 supplementation.

For cooling, I have both lights air cooled, running to another room. A filtered window fan blowing cold air in from outside, an attic fan taking the hottest air up and out, and various oscillating fans to keep air moving.

Here's the interesting part:
I run the led for an hour, before and after the HIDs (which run for 10 hours), giving me a 12/12 cycle. I do this because the HIDs require ALOT of fans, which would make co2 supplementation pointless. But I keep all fans off during the 2 hours where only the led is running, and pump the co2 during those 2 hours.

I figure that this uses the co2 efficiently, saves on power costs, and still replicates a standard 12/12 cycle.

My questions:
Does that single LED induce enough photosynthesis to make the co2 supplementation feasible?
Will the plants be negatively affected by the different light types/positions?

Any feedback is welcome!

 

[Flagg420]

The idea that your light source is moving and changing intensity sounds like nature, and I have seen plants grow in nature... seems legit.

Far as the efficiency of your CO2 uptake, no, sorry I can't offer any intelligent information on that... sounds like a solid plan tho...

 

[Silky Shagsalot]

hid yields way more than led, so why use them? and i agree with your comment about using co2 with led's/waste. yes, growing cost's a bit, but the fact that you don't have to buy smoke anymore should easily justify the cost.

 

[bushrider]

It does not really make sense.
CO2 enrichment allows photosynthesis to take place at a faster rate by supplying extra C02, extra bright light and higher than normal temperature. If you don't supply all three ingredients at the correct levels most of the benefit of CO2 enrichment will be lost. In order to realise the added growth potential extra light intensity is required. Nothing wrong with LEDs but 180w alone will not supply enough intensity to make much use of the CO2 enrichment.

Ideal temps with CO2 enrichment are about 10deg higher than without.
I've never worked with CO2 enrichment myself but from my research its probably best to seal the grow room and use a split AC to control temp rather than use ventilation.

LED lights can currently smash an HPS out of the water watt for watt.
Just check out the grows done with DIY LED setups using COB chips.
However there is much misinformation and many untrue claims by LED grow light manufacturers which has confused the general growing community. In reality only the best/most expensive commercial LED grow lights compare or slightly beat a 600w HPS for efficiency. But DIY setups can absolutely trounce even double ended HPS. One reason I really like LEDs is greatly reduced fire risk, this is a benefit that I think is often overlooked ...

A really cool LED + CO2 setup would be water cooled LEDs in a totally sealed and CO2 enriched chamber. The ballasts/drivers as well as most of the heat produced by the LEDs would be dissipated by radiators outside the grow chamber. AC requirements would be minimal. I'd design the sealed chamber with the idea to minimise insulation so that some of the heat from inside will radiate into the area outside the chamber further reducing AC requirement. Just ventilating the room that houses the chamber would make a significant difference to temps inside the chamber.

 

[jijiandfarmgang]

IMHO you might as well just turn all the lights off. 180 w LED compared to 1400 watts of hid is night and day. CO2 isn't magic. I would say most (not all) growers are wasting their time using it. The most impressive grows I've seen don't bother with it.

But DIY setups can absolutely trounce even double ended HPS.

I've never seen this. Have proof?

- Jiji